Parse reference HTML into a structural blueprint of titles, headings, paragraphs, images, buttons, and colours so you can rebuild it as BuilderX sections with new_section. Not a 1:1 clone.
Parse reference HTML into a structural blueprint (title, headings, paragraphs, images, buttons, colour palette) you can rebuild as BuilderX sections with new_section. Not a 1:1 clone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| html | Yes | Raw HTML to analyse |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.31.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the description's job is lighter. It adds real value by disclosing the shape of the extracted blueprint and the scope caveat that the result is not a 1:1 clone, which sets expectations about fidelity. It omits any input-size limits or handling of malformed HTML.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output, with the scoping caveat placed last where it belongs. Every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by listing the blueprint contents it returns. Combined with the read-only annotation, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the downstream usage pattern could be spelled out further.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the 'html' field as raw HTML to analyse. The description reinforces that the input is reference HTML but adds no syntax, size, or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Parse) and resource (reference HTML) and enumerates the exact blueprint fields it produces (title, headings, paragraphs, images, buttons, colour palette). It also names the follow-on sibling new_section and rules out a common misconception with 'Not a 1:1 clone', so an agent can distinguish it from ingest_url and other ingestion tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives clear context (parse reference HTML to rebuild as BuilderX sections) and routes to new_section as the next step, which is a genuine workflow signal. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use clause, e.g. it never clarifies when to pick ingest_html over the sibling ingest_url.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.